................................................................................ ON THE RECORD DONALD DEWAR INTERVIEW RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION BBC-1 DATE: 18.1.98 ................................................................................ JOHN HUMPHRYS: The Scottish Secretary, Donald Dewar, is regarded as one of Tony Blair's most trusted lieutenants and he is in our Glasgow studio now. Good afternoon Mr Dewar. DONALD DEWAR: Good afternoon indeed. HUMPHRYS: Broad point to start with. You haven't mastered the transition from opposition terribly well in many ways have you. I mean it's looking a bit of a shambles at the moment. Particularly now that we've got, apparently, this split between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor, Mr Blair and Mr Brown, all over the newspapers. All very embarrassing stuff and quite damaging isn't it. DEWAR: Well it's a book that's appeared and when you're in government, you're put under the mircoscope. We always knew of course that everyone would swing their guns onto the government of the day and we look forward to the ordeal. It is a difficulty for every government. But, for example, you, I think make the point about a split between Gordon Brown and Tony Blair. What we've got is a biography of Gordon Brown, not authorised, which rakes over some rather old political stories. I don't think there is a split in any sense at all. I know both men very well, their relationship is at the heart of this government and I can assure you it's extremely strong. HUMPHRYS: But we've got Cabinet ministers briefing political correspondents, one on one side, one on the other, saying it's all Gordon's fault, it's all Tony's fault. All that kind of thing is going on isn't it. DEWAR: No, not to my knowledge. HUMPHRYS: You haven't been reading the papers then. DEWAR: Oh, yes there's lots in the papers. But if you say to me: are we all filing out of the Cabinet Rooms, going in search of our favourite journalists to talk about splits in the Cabinet, the answer is no we're not because there is no split. And I think there's a big gap here between the froth and the excitement of political journalism, columns that need to be filled, excitements of that sort. What's actually happening on the ground, as the opinion polls suggest, and what's happening in reality in terms of the government's record on education, on the Health Service, Welfare to Work and even the much publicised debate over the future of the Welfare State, I think it is time that we tackled some of the problems that almost everyone accepts exists. HUMPHRYS: I'll come on to that in a moment, if I may, the Welfare State, I want to talk about that. DEWAR: Sure. HUMPHRYS: But if there are no problems at all, no splits at all, why did the Prime Minister feel it necessary to lecture the Cabinet about the dangers of splits last Thursday? DEWAR: I'm sometimes notoriously sleeply on occasions and I may have missed something at the Cabinet, but I don't think so. HUMPHRYS: Again, the papers tell us, somebody has been talking about it. Somebody has been leaking it. DEWAR: Oh, no, no. I mean if what happens is that someone may say something unguarded, about the need to keep our eye on the ball, was the subject for discussion for the Cabinet among us all. HUMPHRYS: That someone being the Prime Minister. DEWAR: No, I mean we have a general political discussion every week I can't go beyond that. But I can tell you that I read the front page of one of the national newspapers which proports to have the most detailed account and I didn't recognise the scene, it wasn't a meeting that I was at. I wouldn't complain about that because I recognise that we all have to accept that people will speculate. But if it's put to me as the truth, I have to make it clear to you that it is not the truth. HUMPHRYS: But it is dangerous to have a divided Cabinet isn't it? I mean you all acknowledge that. DEWAR: What divide? HUMPHRYS: Well the divide that we keep hearing about. You've read it as well as I have. DEWAR: Yes, but a divide strikes me as a matter of principle. You may have a divide over Europe as the last Conservative administration did, you might have a battle over some other policy area. Now there is no divide in the Cabinet in that way. And I repeat to you and I say it to someone who is in the position I think to be a witness, that the so-called relationship, it almost sounds like an artificial concept, but the working relationship between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor and their personal friendship is something that is a rock on which this government stands. And it is very much there. HUMPHRYS: Let's look at something else that is still in the papers, hasn't gone away after all this time and is causing damage, I'm sure you wouldn't disagree that it is damaging - because perception is sometimes as important as reality - and that is the case of Geoffrey Robinson, the Paymaster General. We've got another story in the paper this morning, The Sunday Times, that says that he is being investigated by the Inland Revenue. Now, I wouldn't expect you to know whether that is the case or not, but these reports are damaging aren't they. DEWAR: I doubt if The Sunday Times knows either, but... HUMPHRYS: Well it's been approached by somebody from the Inland Revenue and asked for documents, or has offered documents. DEWAR: Well, all I will say to you is that these stories are damaging if they run in the papers and run and run and run. And they're particularly difficult to deal with if there is not a great deal of substance in them. We have to, obviously, present as small a target as we can but I have to accept that headlines that go on in the way they are, these are not happy events for us. Well I console myself with what's happening in the practical field of politics. I look at our checklist when we came in. I look at what we have delivered in the field of class size reduction and the field..in the example of the White Paper on the National Health Service and the shift from the bureaucracy into front line patient care, the enormous commitment to Welfare to Work, to the attack upon unemployment, the first really structured attack on long term unemployment we've seen for any government for very many years. These are the things that ought to keep politicians in politics, those are the aims that they ought to be concentrating on. HUMPHRYS: Since it is damaging, as you acknowledge, the Robinson affair, surely sooner or later.. DEWAR: No, I said.. HUMPHRYS: Well you said those reports if they stay in the papers are damaging and... DEWAR: I make a general point. HUMPHRYS: Indeed. And they are staying in the papers and one of the reasons they're staying in the papers is that, for instance, when we see Question Time and there are questions asked that you would expect the Paymaster General to answer, dealing with his own brief and that is Off-shore trusts and the like, he isn't allowed or isn't put up to answer them. Now the reason for that is that he is seen to be involved in that. Surely the solution to that, at the very least, is to move him out of that department, give him another job, then maybe the headlines will go away. DEWAR: Obviously, Gordon Brown is Chancellor of the Exchequer and he takes responsibility for Exchequer policy and answers for it. HUMPHRYS: Well it was Mr Darling who answered some of those questions. DEWAR: Let me just say no-one as far as I know, has suggested any dishonesty or any illegality in the way that Geoffrey Robinson has acted. Can I make it very clear. HUMPHRYS: It's suggested conflict of interest, that's what's been suggested, isn't it? I mean, here is the man who deals with, in his departmental brief, Off-shore trusts and the allegations against him deal with his relationship with a particular Off-shore trust. So there is certainly an apparent conflict of interest there, isn't there. DEWAR: Well what I would say, well we all pay income tax but it doesn't necessary mean that ministers can't deal with income tax problems. HUMPHRYS: No, that's different. DEWAR: It may or may not be. You can argue this. All I would say to you, it is perhaps a personal point to make, but I have known Geoffrey Robinson for many years, I have enormous admiration for his integrity, he's an extremely useful member of the government and I think that it would be a great loss to politics if he was in fact forced out. I don't think that will happen. HUMPHRYS: But I mean the problem for you is that you had the Chancellor himself saying, before the election: a Labour Chancellor will not permit tax relief to millionaires in Off-shore tax havens. The charge is that Mr Robinson is benefitting in that precise way and that is a problem for you isn't it. DEWAR: Well the particular trust which has been the subject of most of the attention, is money that was never in the United Kingdom and never subject to United Kingdom taxation. HUMPHRYS: But money over which he has exerised influence. DEWAR: But in any event, I mean the important thing is, as I say, is to get on with the real work of the government and I understand your fascination with this. I understand why the Conservative opposition will keep hammering it. It's interesting, isn't it, that when Mr William Hague was asked on television this morning why people should vote Conservative, apart from saying he was dead opposed to Europe, or at least to any active involvement in Europe, his only point, and in fact his first point, was he thought the Labour Government was getting into a little bit of a mess. It's not on the essentials, it's not on the things that matter and I think that we are inevitability, I make no complaint, we've got free press, I mean obviously we are very very much up there for target practise shooting. HUMPHRYS: Well, let me suggest to you that you are getting into a bit of a mess over things that really do matter, very, very important, possibly the most important thing of all, and that is the reform of the Welfare State. Now, you say that the Welfare State isn't working and has to be reformed and many people would argue with that, and you want this great debate, but the problem with the debate is that what you have succeeded in doing so far - for all sorts of reasons, is scaring everybody: the poor, the disabled, the single mums, the middle class - all of whom are afraid that they are going to lose as a result of this. And yet, you tell us, the Prime Minister tells us, everybody else in government tells us: 'actually, nobody's going to lose'. That's why people are scared and confused and worried about it. DEWAR: Well, I am very sorry if people are scared and confused and I certainly don't want to raise scare stories, there have been enough of them about, but what I do say to you very seriously and I struggled with some of these problems myself in opposition for a number of years, is that there is a general recognition that we are spending a great deal more on welfare than we used to. It's been since the last twenty years a four per cent in real terms annual increase and expenditure, now I don't object to that, I am not wanting to change welfare simply to save money, but at the same time we've had more and more people trapped within the welfare system, often living on incomes which are quite unsatisfactory, those in greatest need are not necessarily those that are most effectively being helped. Now, if you say to me that that is something that you can deal with - as the Tories tried to do - simply by containing expenditure, cutting a little bit here, reducing a little bit there, we have to have, I think, a very much more radical approach. We tried with the Social Justice Commission, in Opposition, to face up to some of these problems. We are now, I think, honourably returning them into government, it'll obviously going to be an uncomfortable passage for the reasons that you've outlined but I think it is right that the problems should be tackled and that we should get away, for example, from the crude assumption that this is an argument about universality and means testing, that that is the only question at issue here. And I also want to say to you that if you look at Welfare to Work, for example, if you look at what the Chancellor has made it clear he's planning in terms of working families tax credit systems, you are beginning to see the shape of a very, very much more radical - but I think a very much more progressive and acceptable approach to these problems - than we've had in the past. HUMPHRYS: You did not say in the first part of that answer that nobody would lose, because that is the impression, you see, that's been created. Every time you talk to a member of the Government about it you say: "Yes, of course, look, people are still living in poverty. Four million children living in poverty. A million old age pensioners who aren't getting the things that they could be getting. And we are going to spend more on hospitals and we are going to spend more on schools." Now, all of that money has to come from somewhere. You are not prepared to put up taxes. That means, doesn't it, that somebody somewhere along the line, whether they are the middle class, whether they are single mums, whether they are disabled people, somebody somewhere along the line is going to have to lose in order that somebody else somewhere along the line can benefit? DEWAR: Well, if you say to me that the revolving door principle is a very great problem in welfare reform, I will certainly accept that. But if you look at what we've done, for example, in terms of the notorious - before the election - windfall tax and the transfer of assets in that way, I think that's a very practical example of redistribution of social purpose of which most of us would approve. HUMPHRYS: A very modest sum of money, though, compared with the sums we are talking of - a hundred billion pounds. DEWAR: Well, three point five billion... HUMPHRYS: Well, that's what's been spent, that's not necessarily what is being saved and even if it were we are still talking about... DEWAR: No, no, I'm talking about ... that's what we've committed through the welfare tax. But I mean, I referred to the tax credit plans that the Chancellor has been discussing. I remind you that some of the other ideas that are not at the moment in the frame but, you know, might be revisited - the minimum pension guarantee, for example, has an element of redistribution in it. But it has also got the cardinal virtue - which is why it is worth looking at - that it will ensure that if you have an increase in basic old age pension those at the very bottom of the pension income scale on Income Support actually benefit from it, rather than watching others doing so. You know, there are a lot of ideas about ... they are coming from the Labour camp, we are showing I think the courage of the conviction ... of our convictions ... we said that we were trying to tackle these problems and, yes, it's a debate but you mustn't confuse a debate with a split, and that's the problem, I think. HUMPHRYS: Ah, no, no, no, I didn't talk about split in relation to that particular debate. My point there was that what you are doing is having a debate - or telling us that you are having this great debate - but there's no substance there because you shy away from the really important questions. Now you seemed to say something in that answer - correct me if I'm wrong - but you seemed to say that perhaps in future and when we're talking about the basic state pension, the increases that would normally go to absolutely everybody may in future only go to those who are least well off. Is that what you're suggesting? DEWAR: No, I'm not the Social Security Secretary. HUMPHRYS: No, I understand that, but I mean that's one of the things you're looking at. DEWAR: What I'm saying to you is ... well, no I'm not even saying that ... what I'm saying is that that was one of the ideas that emerged, for example, from the Social Justice Commission. And I was using that as a way of pointing to one of the great problems of the pension system as we presently know it. HUMPHRYS: And it's still on the cards, is it? DEWAR: Well, I don't know if it's on the cards at this stage because we are at an early stage. What I am saying to you is that a lot of the movement on this, the intellectual effort and endeavour, is coming from the Labour Party and I'm not going to apologise for that, I'm thoroughly ... in fact, I'm thoroughly in favour of that debate taking place although I recognise, of course, the political risks that are involved. But I think in a few years time you will look back and you will see that this is a Government that has been prepared to tackle these problems and it will bring results. HUMPHRYS: Except that you said ..... I am sorry if you are having trouble with your earpiece there, try and get that...is it all right now? There we go ..... DEWAR: It's just about it, I've never been very good at the dressing..... HUMPHRYS: You need to get a new ear, I think, that's probably the solution to that..... Let me just return to the ..... Can you hear me all right? DEWAR: Yes, I can now. I'm sorry about that. HUMPHRYS: No, not at all. Let me just return to the problem. You rather dismissed the question of universal benefits as opposed to means testing, all that, as being almost unworthy of this debate. DEWAR: No. HUMPHRYS: I mean, the fact is that that is absolutely fundamental to any discussion about the Welfare State, isn't it. DEWAR: Well, of course, it's an important part of the argument. What I was merely saying is that if you simplify the argument to the point where that is the only question that arises, then, it makes it very difficult to make progress and there are a whole number of difficult factors there. And, of course, the need to keep everyone involved in the Welfare State - it's important. That's one of the key importances of the Health Service, for example. And, I, again, ask you to look at the wider context that the abolition of VAT on Domestic Fuels... not the abolition, sorry, the reduction, to five per cent; Welfare to Work; the money that has gone into trying to create opportunity. I think, that is one of the great features of the review which the Prime Minister has underlined. But, what we want, indeed, is to make progress but we want to make it on the basis that we are creating opportunity and, also, encouraging people to improve the quality of their own lives. And, to contribute to the community more effectively. HUMPHRYS: But, in the long run, if more money is to be spent on the poor, there's only one area - one lot of people it can come from and that's the better-off, isn't it? DEWAR: You can, certainly, and that is why I drew attention to the debate that's going on about the tax credit system, for example. That's particularly in the area of working families and support for them. But, there may be wider messages that can be taken up. There's a Green Paper coming shortly. HUMPHRYS: When? We've been told it's been delayed? Is that right? DEWAR: Well, I'm not - it's not my department and it would be very wrong for me to try and give a date. But, we know that there is further work being done. We know that there is going to be a Green Paper. We know that ideas are coming from the Government. If you say to me: aren't you being very, very foolish? You really should have forgotten all this rhetoric about changing the Welfare State and modernising it, making it... HUMPHRYS: I never said that. DEWAR: No, no. I said if you are implying that, shut-up shop, then I am sure you would say: no, no, that's not what you-what I mean. But, of course, when you do try and open up the arguments, then, immediately, the flack starts flying and there's some suggestion that the Government is in trouble. It's not in trouble. This has always been an area where we know that we would arouse controversy, but we took the view that it was right to do so. HUMPHRYS: Can I anticipate some more big rows to come - admittedly in a little while from now - when - and I'm making a great assumption here - you are the first Minister of Scotland. We have our Scottish Parliament. You're the first Minister in it. Your MPs in that Parliament want to do things that this Parliament here - Westminster - doesn't want to do. There are going to be some pretty big rows aren't there? DEWAR: I don't know about that. It's interesting that we have seen one of the great changes in Conservative approach since the Election in the last week or two. They didn't divide against the Second Reading of the Scotland Bill. We had the Conservative Frontbench competing to say how strongly they support now the principle of devolution. They accept that there should be a Scottish Parliament but they have this complaint or that complaint about the exact way in which it is being done. And one of the good things - I'm not complaining about that change - is that in Scotland, in particular, there has been a big, big coming together - a determination - right across the range of Scottish society to make this work and to make a go of it and people who campaigned very fiercely against this in the Referendum are now saying: right, it's decided, let's get on with it. HUMPHRYS: But just a quick... what if, for instance, your MPs in Scotland said: tuition fees for University education, we will have no part of it - we don't want it. What happens then? What do you say to them? DEWAR: If a Scottish Parliament says that? HUMPHRYS: Oh, yeah. No way! DEWAR: That's a devolved area of responsibility. HUMPHRYS: And, what if it wasn't? What if it was something- DEWAR: Well, let me answer the question, John. HUMPHRYS: Well, if it's a devolved area of responsibility, it falls within the remit of the Scottish Parliament and if they want to take that decision, they're entitled to take it. But, you've got to remember, the basis of the partnership which is the United Kingdom is that we pool our resources, allocated them on the basis of need and, obviously, if the Scottish Parliament wants to find more money in that particular area, they've got to find it from within the Scottish bloc. That's the discipline of Government, that's the discipline of politics. And, that will be a framework within which that Parliament will have to operate like every other responsible legislative body. Donald Dewar, thanks for soldiering on with your earpiece. Many thanks for joining us, 'Bye, 'bye. ...oooOooo...